7

Few hours ago I was looking at bitcoin.stackexchange and found a question about quarkcoin. I was curious to know what is this. Reading a little bit I have found that it does not provide anything new except of:

  • combining a lot of cryptofunctions in a big ball of mud and calling it super secure
  • quick block generation 30 secs
  • more coins to mint
  • Total of 247 million QRK will be mined in ~ 6 months, after that ~ 1 million QRK p.a. (~ 0.5% p.a inflation)
  • other small tweaks

And from wiki page it is written:

Of the 247 million QRK the developers own roughly 85-90% of them.

I am just curious what value does it bring to the table and why someone would like to mint it, if it sounds like it was created just for developers to dump it for some other crypto.

Salvador Dali
  • 3,320
  • 7
  • 30
  • 49
  • I don't think BitCoin is going anywhere. But I do believe that the BitCoin is Gold and "XYZ" Currency is Silver could be somewhat valid. If for any reason, for pricing products and services on easier to understand (less fractional) terms. The higher BitCoin gets the easier it is for people to compare prices with it for higher priced things. But imagine buying a piece of gum or a soda for a millionth of a decimal point. I don't think most people are smart enough to understand the difference. Having smaller priced cryptos could aid in that distinction. And there could be other unseen benefits. A –  Dec 12 '13 at 18:21

2 Answers2

1

It really depends on what happens to that original 85%-90%. If the developers really own that large an amount, they will always be able to corner the market if they work together.

That idea troubles me, but I still buy Quarks because I see the value in the multiple hashing algorithms.

I think perhaps 85%-90% is quite clever as it puts Quarks on the map a lot quicker. Right? I think this has helped them gain press attention to their increased security meassures, by becoming the 5th largest crypto-currency available. I'm thinking that's an effect of generating so much currency so quickly.

I would expect value to continue to come into Quark, especially after Bill Still and Max Keiser talk about it on the 19th, then again as the new financial year starts around the world and everyone has another panic attack about the state of the world economy.

My point is, after the value has increased for a while and flattened out (if it does), I would expect Quarks to be used as currency earlier than Bitcoin. If quarks go to a dollar in 2014, then that's a lot of currency already out there, and it's not so expensive for people to invest, and not such a big deal when you spend a Quark.

The original holders of that 80%-90% would be more insentivized to spend that currency into the market than if they held Bitcoin (assuming it does not rise too fast).

One thing I really want to know, is how people arrive at the idea that the "the developers" own that much, and how they 80%-90% figure is arrived at. Are they meaning 3 developers, or do they mean 100 developers, 1000? It makes a big difference.

I guess we will have to wait and see if those original developers will put their Quarks where they mouths are and spend enough Quarks into the market on real goods and services, that they begin to circulate and become useful to everyone as a currency.

The way I see it, and I may be crazy, but those original developers would do themselves a huge favor if they got together and re-distributed a good portion of their monopoly as a PR exercise.

It would say a lot. And it would do a lot for Quarks as a currency to have a smooth distribution across the market.

f1lt3r
  • 111
  • 2
  • 2
    Can you please add some links to the post and clarify some strong opinions like "I would expect quarks to be used earlier then bitcoin", "original holders would be more insentivezed to spend.." – Salvador Dali Dec 04 '13 at 07:14
  • 2
    It would only be the 5th largest if you calculate the market cap in an overly simplistic and altogether incorrect manner - i.e. coins_in_existence*price_per_coin. If you use a more meaningful metric, say the sum of all bids, you'll arrive at a more accurate measurement of actual market interest in a given currency. – David Perry Dec 05 '13 at 00:43
  • Salvador, I don't really have a link to support the notion that "I would expect Quarks to be used earlier than Bitcoin" - it's just an opinion as someone who has used Quark coin as currency. It's easier to to use a lower-value coin as currency because it's less likely to appreciate through the roof. I know it's still unstable right now, all alternatives are as far as I'm aware, it's just less of a physiological barrier to deal in Quarks after being in Bitcoin long enough to see my investment go up so much. – f1lt3r Dec 05 '13 at 18:45
  • Thanks for the info David. Do you know of a site that uses this metric? – f1lt3r Dec 05 '13 at 18:47
-1

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.0

There is no proof anywhere that the developers owns 85-90% of Quark. In case anyone have such evidence i would like to know the details. So far as i know, the release was fair and no pre mining was done before the release. Check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.0

Compare the first mined block with the day of QRK's release. Look at the number of unique addresses too.

Mr.Blockchain
  • 1
  • 1
    It is usually helpful to provide a summary of the content that you are linking to, and provide the link only as a source. In this case, the relevant information would be that Block 1 was found on `Timestamp 2013-07-21 12:03:50 UTC` and a BitcoinTalk thread was started on `July 21, 2013, 04:04:38 PM` (not sure which timezone that would be). – Murch Dec 09 '13 at 17:55